I find it staggering that these organisations look to punish a club simply for being a new club and a new member. When did this start? Did Annan Athletic get punished for being a new member of the SFL? Surely this would disadvantage the club and bring the sporting integrity of the SFL into question? If they are getting punished for the maladministration of a club some say are dead then why would this be passed on to a new company and club? If Spartans had been voted in, would they have received these sanctions? This must mean that Rangers are still Rangers in the eyes of the SFA. And if they are the same club in the eyes of the SFA they will be investiagted for dual contracts - rightly so. If they are the same club in the eyes of the body responsible for registering the club as a member then the league titles, cup wins etc will remain as part of the club's long history. A huge amount of Celtic fans want to see Rangers punished. They also want the club to be brand new and so have no history. This can't happen the same way that a lot of Rangers fans want to keep the history and not get hit by any punishment. Rangers are either still the same club and so get punished or a brand new entity and receive no punishment.
Rangers were granted membership of the SFA on the basis that they accepted responsibility for the actions of Rangers. It seems Rangers are a "new club" or a continuation of the old club depending upon the situation, they can't have it both ways.
To paraphrase William Joel, "you'll always be Rangers to me". The new club is being punished because they are taking on the licence of Rangers. It is essentially a trade off between the football authorities and Rangers. Rangers do not meet the criteria to get a licence. The SFA desperately want to let them in. Rangers did not meet the criteria to keep a licence but this is one of those makey-uppey rules that you shouldn't be complaining about.
In order to transfer the membership. It's either that or show's your four years of audited accounts the way, say, Cove or Huntly would have to. It's fairly straightforward.
I don't see a problem with being hypocrite. Most of Scottish football is plagued by it and you know what they say. If you can't beat em join em.
It is straightforward....but I don't agree with it. Rangers shouldn't be punished...but they are not in a position to bargain.
Rangers does exist, but for how long, who knows? Rangers, a 140 year old club, have been put into a league without actually qualifying to be there. They should be hammered imo.
It's the same club in the eyes of Charles Green, Malcolm Murray and ALly McCoist so why should the SFA see it any differently?
It's also the same club in the eyes of the fans. If we want it to be the same club then we have to accept the punishment and any investigation into dual contracts. If it's a new club then no punishment should be handed out for bringing the game into disrepute over unpaid NI and PAYE, unpaid fees due to clubs etc.
Jesus H No. It is the same membership. You can provide the correct financial details to get new membership or... you can transfer an old club's membership but that comes at a price. Airdrie United took Clydebank's membership - they are not the same club.
I agree, but it has been established (I think) that it is the same club. They wear the same strip, play at the same ground with some of the same players and staff, some Gers fans eem to be stating that it's a new club and should therefore avoid any sanctions but at the same time they are saying the history remains? It makes no sense,
